nayjevin
06-12-2007, 10:19 PM
I received this email from a good friend of mine who has decidedly different beliefs than I do, mostly because he gets all of his news from Fox and won't ever take the time to read a whole article on anything from anywhere else because it just seems like crap to him - cause it goes against everything he hears on MSM.
Keep in mind this is a really good friend of mine, even though some of these statements make me want to pull my hair out:
I fully endorse RPs old school conservative beliefs. Although I am more of a libertarian/neo-con, any stance that is more than 50% of what I believe in and isn't so half-assed as to render itself impotent, is alright with me. I believe in globalism in contrast to RPs isolationist beliefs. Thats pretty much it. However, I can't stand the Republicans or Democrats globalist beliefs because they don't ever make legislative choices, the make compromises that please no one and accomplishes nothing. If we need to pull out of Iraq, then fine, lets do it. If we want to stay and win this war, then the streets need to run with the blood of terrorist sons-of-bitches. This limp-wristed approach to the war only drags out the inevitable, whatever it may be.
In reference to your comments, I was mocking the PTB by speaking of "primitive times". I think that the PTB believe that we have progressed past the belief system of our founding fathers due to their inability to foresee the future. Much like the argument that the FFs might not have ruled in favor of the second amendment if they would have known that we would posses hand guns and automatic weapons in this day and age.
Still, I think that we should stick to the maxim "the most likely answer is the simplest one". We should realize that we have bogged ourselves down in too many rules and legislation, and we need to return to the simple beliefs of our FFs. I think that RP is on to something. Between RP, Neal Boortz, and Ross Perot, I think the libertarian party has a chance to really catch the publics eye and hopefully some votes.
So here is the email i am sending back -- does anybody have any thoughts on whether my points are well constructed/effective or whether i should pitch it all and say 'right on brother'??
"Between RP, Neal Boortz, and Ross Perot, I think the libertarian party has a chance to really catch the publics eye and hopefully some votes."
you know ron paul's running republican, right? and that the only official poll so far (the utah straw poll) put him in second place to romney -- ahead of mccain and giuliani? parties don't mean shit anymore anyway.
"I think that the PTB believe that we have progressed past the belief system of our founding fathers due to their inability to foresee the future. Much like the argument that the FFs might not have ruled in favor of the second amendment if they would have known that we would posses hand guns and automatic weapons in this day and age. "
I am a bit more cynical, but we're on the same page. I don't think the PTB actually believe we've progressed past the constitution -- more likely they have read it and understood it, along with Mein Kampf and sun tzu's Art of War, and know exactly how powerful it is to preserve liberty -- if it were followed. I think they know that the liberty of the people gets in the way of ownership of the resources, and a truly free and educated people would stop their global game of Risk that gets them off. I think the idea that FF ideas are outdated is only spouted as propoganda to apologize for legislation that tramples the constitution.
by PTB i don't mean the talking heads in congress and senate -- there may be some of these who actually don't think the constitution would work (although i suspect it's more like they don't care) -- i mean the world bank and council on foreign relations, and project for a new century etc. types. always aiming to take power from the people, and put it into the hands of themselves or those they control. always positioning to control resources (iran, iraq, darfur, afghanistan, on and on) and power (u.n., NATO, etc).
"Although I am more of a libertarian/neo-con"
well, first, there's no such thing. they are polar opposites.
wiki:
Prominent neoconservatives are associated with periodicals such as Commentary and The Weekly Standard, and with foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).
this just about describes the PTB as i see it, who believe in globalism, imperialism. libertarians are live let live.
"I believe in globalism in contrast to RPs isolationist beliefs."
ron paul is not an isolationist. isolationists believe that trade with other countries should be closed. he is a non-interventionist, which means he doesn't believe we should be involved in the politics of other countries. no regime change for instance. RP is dubbed an isolationist only by those who wish to deface him -- it is easy to argue against isolationism, but there are no logical arguments agains non-interventionism.
globalists and neocons are interested in spreading 'democracy' to the world, however, democracy is not even working here -- 70% of america believes we should not be in the war, but we are. true democracy is for the people, by the people. america is not democracy. i don't believe in democracy anyway, BTW, because at least 51% of people in high school thought john doe (editor's note: a guy that was a douche jock in HS) was a cool guy, how fucked up is that?
"I can't stand the Republicans or Democrats globalist beliefs because they don't ever make legislative choices, they make compromises that please no one and accomplishes nothing. If we need to pull out of Iraq, then fine, lets do it. If we want to stay and win this war, then the streets need to run with the blood of terrorist sons-of-bitches. This limp-wristed approach to the war only drags out the inevitable, whatever it may be."
legislation regarding what to do in other countries enacted in the last 15 years or so has aimed to do one thing and one thing only -- increase occupation, and increase control. it's not about solving problems around the world. you don't solve problems with bombs and guns -- the guys at the top aren't stupid enough to believe that you can. they don't want to solve problems -- they want to occupy and control -- and convince america it is for moral reasons.
the biggest eye opener i ever have had to what is really going on came from reading ron paul's speeches to congress.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/
it's the strongest shit ever, and ron paul doesn't bullshit about it -- he lays it right out in front of these guys -- but it's often to an empty crowd.
"Still, I think that we should stick to the maxim "the most likely answer is the simplest one". We should realize that we have bogged ourselves down in too many rules and legislation, and we need to return to the simple beliefs of our FFs. I think that RP is on to something."
woot woot!!
jay
Keep in mind this is a really good friend of mine, even though some of these statements make me want to pull my hair out:
I fully endorse RPs old school conservative beliefs. Although I am more of a libertarian/neo-con, any stance that is more than 50% of what I believe in and isn't so half-assed as to render itself impotent, is alright with me. I believe in globalism in contrast to RPs isolationist beliefs. Thats pretty much it. However, I can't stand the Republicans or Democrats globalist beliefs because they don't ever make legislative choices, the make compromises that please no one and accomplishes nothing. If we need to pull out of Iraq, then fine, lets do it. If we want to stay and win this war, then the streets need to run with the blood of terrorist sons-of-bitches. This limp-wristed approach to the war only drags out the inevitable, whatever it may be.
In reference to your comments, I was mocking the PTB by speaking of "primitive times". I think that the PTB believe that we have progressed past the belief system of our founding fathers due to their inability to foresee the future. Much like the argument that the FFs might not have ruled in favor of the second amendment if they would have known that we would posses hand guns and automatic weapons in this day and age.
Still, I think that we should stick to the maxim "the most likely answer is the simplest one". We should realize that we have bogged ourselves down in too many rules and legislation, and we need to return to the simple beliefs of our FFs. I think that RP is on to something. Between RP, Neal Boortz, and Ross Perot, I think the libertarian party has a chance to really catch the publics eye and hopefully some votes.
So here is the email i am sending back -- does anybody have any thoughts on whether my points are well constructed/effective or whether i should pitch it all and say 'right on brother'??
"Between RP, Neal Boortz, and Ross Perot, I think the libertarian party has a chance to really catch the publics eye and hopefully some votes."
you know ron paul's running republican, right? and that the only official poll so far (the utah straw poll) put him in second place to romney -- ahead of mccain and giuliani? parties don't mean shit anymore anyway.
"I think that the PTB believe that we have progressed past the belief system of our founding fathers due to their inability to foresee the future. Much like the argument that the FFs might not have ruled in favor of the second amendment if they would have known that we would posses hand guns and automatic weapons in this day and age. "
I am a bit more cynical, but we're on the same page. I don't think the PTB actually believe we've progressed past the constitution -- more likely they have read it and understood it, along with Mein Kampf and sun tzu's Art of War, and know exactly how powerful it is to preserve liberty -- if it were followed. I think they know that the liberty of the people gets in the way of ownership of the resources, and a truly free and educated people would stop their global game of Risk that gets them off. I think the idea that FF ideas are outdated is only spouted as propoganda to apologize for legislation that tramples the constitution.
by PTB i don't mean the talking heads in congress and senate -- there may be some of these who actually don't think the constitution would work (although i suspect it's more like they don't care) -- i mean the world bank and council on foreign relations, and project for a new century etc. types. always aiming to take power from the people, and put it into the hands of themselves or those they control. always positioning to control resources (iran, iraq, darfur, afghanistan, on and on) and power (u.n., NATO, etc).
"Although I am more of a libertarian/neo-con"
well, first, there's no such thing. they are polar opposites.
wiki:
Prominent neoconservatives are associated with periodicals such as Commentary and The Weekly Standard, and with foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).
this just about describes the PTB as i see it, who believe in globalism, imperialism. libertarians are live let live.
"I believe in globalism in contrast to RPs isolationist beliefs."
ron paul is not an isolationist. isolationists believe that trade with other countries should be closed. he is a non-interventionist, which means he doesn't believe we should be involved in the politics of other countries. no regime change for instance. RP is dubbed an isolationist only by those who wish to deface him -- it is easy to argue against isolationism, but there are no logical arguments agains non-interventionism.
globalists and neocons are interested in spreading 'democracy' to the world, however, democracy is not even working here -- 70% of america believes we should not be in the war, but we are. true democracy is for the people, by the people. america is not democracy. i don't believe in democracy anyway, BTW, because at least 51% of people in high school thought john doe (editor's note: a guy that was a douche jock in HS) was a cool guy, how fucked up is that?
"I can't stand the Republicans or Democrats globalist beliefs because they don't ever make legislative choices, they make compromises that please no one and accomplishes nothing. If we need to pull out of Iraq, then fine, lets do it. If we want to stay and win this war, then the streets need to run with the blood of terrorist sons-of-bitches. This limp-wristed approach to the war only drags out the inevitable, whatever it may be."
legislation regarding what to do in other countries enacted in the last 15 years or so has aimed to do one thing and one thing only -- increase occupation, and increase control. it's not about solving problems around the world. you don't solve problems with bombs and guns -- the guys at the top aren't stupid enough to believe that you can. they don't want to solve problems -- they want to occupy and control -- and convince america it is for moral reasons.
the biggest eye opener i ever have had to what is really going on came from reading ron paul's speeches to congress.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/
it's the strongest shit ever, and ron paul doesn't bullshit about it -- he lays it right out in front of these guys -- but it's often to an empty crowd.
"Still, I think that we should stick to the maxim "the most likely answer is the simplest one". We should realize that we have bogged ourselves down in too many rules and legislation, and we need to return to the simple beliefs of our FFs. I think that RP is on to something."
woot woot!!
jay